Should the government prioritise funding for
arts over funding for sports? Why/Why not?
There are two primary arguments why governments should prioritise funding
for the arts over funding for sports: firstly, that the arts are more valuable for
their ability to yield physical products, such as paintings or statues—a
functionality that the sports lack; and secondly, that the arts are more
intellectually demanding and thus superior. In this essay, I will counter these
claims and explain why funding should remain equally distributed across the
arts and sports. For clarity, I have defined “the arts” as any activity that
revolves around subjective expression (e.g. music) and “sports” as any that
concerns physical performance (e.g. football).
I will begin with the first aforementioned counter point: sports are less
functional, as they do not yield tangible benefits. Certain modes of art can be
used to create physical products. For example, sculptors and carvers can apply
their skills in architecture to create aesthetic buildings. Likewise, pottery
students can use their qualifications to create containers, vases, and other
usable goods. Because sports are temporary spectacles and do not create
tangible benefits, they should be deemed less functional and thus less
deserving of monetary support.
However, this argument assumes that activites can only be fruitful if they yield
physical results. Although sports are unlikely to improve architecture or
manifest in aesthetic items the way the arts do, they have been shown to
widen skillsets and provide other, non-tangible benefits. Many clinicians claim
that contact sports, such as boxing, can be used to release anger in healthy,
ordered environments: an outlet that some may not be able to find in artistic
fields. Sports can also be used to improve physical endurance and strength:
traits that are not as well-trained in artistic endeavours, such as fine painting or
weaving. Thus, reducing funding for sports would likely reduce happiness and
result in a more narrow, constricted workforce. Under this logic, it does not
seem logical or beneficial to reduce funding for sports, as sports and the arts
are both necessary in maintaining sustainable, healthy communities.
arts over funding for sports? Why/Why not?
There are two primary arguments why governments should prioritise funding
for the arts over funding for sports: firstly, that the arts are more valuable for
their ability to yield physical products, such as paintings or statues—a
functionality that the sports lack; and secondly, that the arts are more
intellectually demanding and thus superior. In this essay, I will counter these
claims and explain why funding should remain equally distributed across the
arts and sports. For clarity, I have defined “the arts” as any activity that
revolves around subjective expression (e.g. music) and “sports” as any that
concerns physical performance (e.g. football).
I will begin with the first aforementioned counter point: sports are less
functional, as they do not yield tangible benefits. Certain modes of art can be
used to create physical products. For example, sculptors and carvers can apply
their skills in architecture to create aesthetic buildings. Likewise, pottery
students can use their qualifications to create containers, vases, and other
usable goods. Because sports are temporary spectacles and do not create
tangible benefits, they should be deemed less functional and thus less
deserving of monetary support.
However, this argument assumes that activites can only be fruitful if they yield
physical results. Although sports are unlikely to improve architecture or
manifest in aesthetic items the way the arts do, they have been shown to
widen skillsets and provide other, non-tangible benefits. Many clinicians claim
that contact sports, such as boxing, can be used to release anger in healthy,
ordered environments: an outlet that some may not be able to find in artistic
fields. Sports can also be used to improve physical endurance and strength:
traits that are not as well-trained in artistic endeavours, such as fine painting or
weaving. Thus, reducing funding for sports would likely reduce happiness and
result in a more narrow, constricted workforce. Under this logic, it does not
seem logical or beneficial to reduce funding for sports, as sports and the arts
are both necessary in maintaining sustainable, healthy communities.
